[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Don’t cry too much old lady.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Don’t cry too much old lady. [/quote]Ya know ya make me nervous lately Chris. I’ve looked at this short post of yours about ten times and I cannot decide if it is lighthearted joking or an actual dig. Fletch should be along shortly to tell me it’s A with a little bit of B. =]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Don’t cry too much old lady. [/quote]Ya know ya make me nervous lately Chris. I’ve looked at this short post of yours about ten times and I cannot decide if it is lighthearted joking or an actual dig. Fletch should be along shortly to tell me it’s A with a little bit of B. =]
[/quote]
Just A. Nice beard. I’d say Blues Bro, but you know…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Don’t cry too much old lady. [/quote]Ya know ya make me nervous lately Chris. I’ve looked at this short post of yours about ten times and I cannot decide if it is lighthearted joking or an actual dig. Fletch should be along shortly to tell me it’s A with a little bit of B. =]
[/quote]
Just A. Nice beard. I’d say Blues Bro, but you know…
ww.nypost.com/p/news/international/mission_accomplished_vatican_blesses_gex4vIBiJ78B9Pgukel42I?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=[/quote]Have you been putting those mushrooms in your cheerios again Christopher. Beard?
Also I have never seen the blues brothers.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Don’t cry too much old lady. [/quote]Ya know ya make me nervous lately Chris. I’ve looked at this short post of yours about ten times and I cannot decide if it is lighthearted joking or an actual dig. Fletch should be along shortly to tell me it’s A with a little bit of B. =]
[/quote]
Just A. Nice beard. I’d say Blues Bro, but you know…
ww.nypost.com/p/news/international/mission_accomplished_vatican_blesses_gex4vIBiJ78B9Pgukel42I?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=[/quote]Have you been putting those mushrooms in your cheerios again Christopher. Beard?
Also I have never seen the blues brothers.
[/quote]
Facebook. But, you’ve never seen the Blues Brothers…oh my.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Don’t cry too much old lady. [/quote]Ya know ya make me nervous lately Chris. I’ve looked at this short post of yours about ten times and I cannot decide if it is lighthearted joking or an actual dig. Fletch should be along shortly to tell me it’s A with a little bit of B. =]
[/quote]
Just A. Nice beard. I’d say Blues Bro, but you know…
ww.nypost.com/p/news/international/mission_accomplished_vatican_blesses_gex4vIBiJ78B9Pgukel42I?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=[/quote]Have you been putting those mushrooms in your cheerios again Christopher. Beard?
Also I have never seen the blues brothers.
[/quote]
Facebook. But, you’ve never seen the Blues Brothers…oh my.
[/quote]Ah, you saw my picture. No Blues Brothers for me. Just never got around to it. Not much of a comedy guy really. I have been asked the following in a PM and it was requested that I ask the Catholics to answer if they would be so charitable. [quote]What’s the point of having scriptures, infallible and inspired by the Word of God if its not the final authority by which we must live by? And also why do Catholics utilize the writings of the early Church fathers (which contradict each other many times, some believed in the true presence and some didn’t for example) if they are not scripture? [/quote]
John 6:56.
Again.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[/quote]
It is the final authority.
And, I’d like to see these ECF that don’t believe in the TP.
P.S. There is a difference between ECF and Ecclesiastic Writers.
[quote]Cortes wrote:John 6:56. Again.[/quote]How does this relate to the issue of the authority of scripture and the ECF. I assume honest question.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< P.S. There is a difference between ECF and Ecclesiastic Writers. [/quote]Please elaborate. You have my solemn word that this is not me playing games. I really am being asked these questions.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[/quote]
It is the final authority.
And, I’d like to see these ECF that don’t believe in the TP.
P.S. There is a difference between ECF and Ecclesiastic Writers. [/quote]
I thought “Ecclesiastical writers” is a broader term, encompassing both the early church fathers and theologians in the Middle Ages. I’m probably wrong though.
Why do Protestants cite the early church fathers in defense of an early recognition of the canon’s boundaries when the texts considered Scriptural varied to some degree from one early church father to another?
Answer: because it’s convenient 
Sorry, tired and feeling a little playful/cynical tonight
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:John 6:56. Again.[/quote]How does this relate to the issue of the authority of scripture and the ECF. I assume honest question.
[/quote]
Look how differently we interpret one single line and the ramification this has upon our entire systems of belief. John 6:56 is just one example.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:John 6:56. Again.[/quote]How does this relate to the issue of the authority of scripture and the ECF. I assume honest question.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< P.S. There is a difference between ECF and Ecclesiastic Writers. [/quote]Please elaborate. You have my solemn word that this is not me playing games. I really am being asked these questions.
[/quote]
I will later. It’s wrestling time.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Look how differently we interpret one single line and the ramification this has upon our entire systems of belief. John 6:56 is just one example. [/quote]I couldn’t agree more, but the question was why have authoritative infallible scriptures if they aren’t going to be the final authority?
I cannot tell whether his majesty is pointing out a similarity of methodical pragmatism between the papists and schismatics or what else is precisely intended by his "playful/cynical remark.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Look how differently we interpret one single line and the ramification this has upon our entire systems of belief. John 6:56 is just one example. [/quote]I couldn’t agree more, but the question was why have authoritative infallible scriptures if they aren’t going to be the final authority?
[/quote]
Lol. I don’t think you’d want to go there, plus I only wrestle my baby cousins/nephews anymore.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Look how differently we interpret one single line and the ramification this has upon our entire systems of belief. John 6:56 is just one example. [/quote]I couldn’t agree more, but the question was why have authoritative infallible scriptures if they aren’t going to be the final authority?
[/quote]
They are the final authority. Along with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Neither of the three are intended independently, all work as one. And we certainly need more than just the Holy Scriptures. Look at what you guys have done with just those. How many Protestant denominations are there now? Over 30,000, isn’t it?
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”
" And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium. [/quote]
This is why Tirib gets confused when I say Catholicism has no philosophy. Plus, I think he gets angry because he knows he can’t pull that crap about worshipping at Aristotle’s altar, because I’ve explained both things of how Catholics ACTUALLY worship and that catholics don’t have a philosophy.
We were given a set of facts or revelations. Not a philosophy. Through the years we used different contemporary philosophies to explain these revelations, such as Plato with Augustine and Aristotle with Aquinas.
Revelation given to the Church is like knowing the fact that leaves are green. The philosophy is how we explain why/how/what kind/&c. the leaf is green. Revelation is the fact that leaves are green, that doesn’t change.
The Catholic (big C) church’s failure or refusal to recognize it’s own plainly Aristotelian philosophical foundation is not my fault. It is your church for centuries and centuries and centuries that is confused Christopher. Makes perfect sense really though I suspect you will not agree. There is God’s philosophical system and all the false ones. Your church has adopted one of the false ones. In earnest since Aquinas. Many many of my protestant brethren, even Calvinist protestant brethren, have done this as well so in that regard I am not singling out Rome for ridicule.
I see clear as the light of the Spirit of the living God brother Chris. You still have not understood “epistemology”.
Cortes gave the long version of what I told the person in my response to their PM. Good answer. One day you ARE going to see that you CANNOT agree with me on epistemology and also agree with your church’s foundations. They are mutually exclusive antagonistic systems of thought. I’d LOVE to talk about that with you. I couldn’t think of what it might be, but I thought you might be angry with me and not want to talk because you never answered my email or PM which is not like you.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Revelation given to the Church is like knowing the fact that leaves are green. The philosophy is how we explain why/how/what kind/etc. the leaf is green. Revelation is the fact that leaves are green, that doesn’t change.[/quote]You are really REALLY missing it here Chris. Like I say. Epistemology is eluding you entirely with statements like this. YOU are the one who is confused which is not the same as stupid. Once again fellas. To agree with this: [quote]God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.[/quote] is to repudiate Aristotle, Aquinas AND by extension the Catholic (big C) church. Oh yes it is.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The Catholic (big C) church’s failure or refusal to recognize it’s own plainly Aristotelian philosophical foundation is not my fault.[/quote]
You’re fault is that you haven’t proven your assertion. So far you’ve said that you would, then said you were busy and you’d get to it later. You never did and then you come around act like you have…you still need to prove your assertion. The church’s revelation has no foundation based on Aristotle, but on Jesus (Jude 3).